Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

A sad day for diversity

And so the pozz continues to spread. Let’s see if Saudi men have any blood in their veins. Probably not. Islamism will turn out to have been just a CIA operation after all.



76 responses to “A sad day for diversity

  1. Pingback: A sad day for diversity | @the_arv

  2. T. G September 27, 2017 at 04:17

    “Islamism will turn out to have been just a CIA operation after all.”

    Rumor has it that the CIA doesn’t want war with Iran, because it believes that it can bring about regime change through internal poz. What do you think?

    • Mackus September 28, 2017 at 07:57

      Heh. They’re probably half done already.

    • Orthodox September 29, 2017 at 00:34

      Spengler (ATimes) argued Iran needed to expand its reach because it’s oil fields are running low and it has low TFR. Iranian TFR is below the USA.

      • Rhetocrates October 2, 2017 at 14:38

        Iranian TFR is also artificially suppressed, with roving abortion vans and strong encouragement of contraceptives. They’ve shown in the past that they could reverse the trend, at need, or merely stop suppressing it and get a TFR around 3.

        Of course, this was 50 years ago.

    • Alrenous September 30, 2017 at 05:47

      Iran’s deal is they have a real army. Parts of USG would love to invade, but they might actually have to fight their way in, so it won’t happen.

      Encircling Iran via bases in Afghanistan and Iraq was not a coincidence.

  3. Pingback: A sad day for diversity | Reaction Times

  4. indravaruna September 27, 2017 at 08:39

    KSA is starting a massive privatization push, according to the Guardian is gonna be bigger than Thatcher or the post-Soviet fire sale, it’s the total victory of Neoliberalism or simply is the sheiks that are bankrupt after the War in Yemen and the Syria failure?

    • Johan Schmidt September 27, 2017 at 16:06

      By empowering a whole new generation of Oligarchs the Saudi Royal Family can bind them into the “hang together or hang separately” Ancien Regime privilege nexus. At least until the Oligarchs in question go full Goolag.

      • indravaruna September 28, 2017 at 02:46

        I think is more the case of the Saudi royals recognizing that they’re just a US-israeli client State and their survival is totally dependent of being in good terms with the Globohomo ruling class.

        • j September 29, 2017 at 10:30

          In a general way you are right. Specifically, they are in need of money. Much money. They are trying to sell their assets and trying to sell bonds and getting loans. Only America has the cash and the expeditionary forces to save their Bedouin asses. And America has oil so the Saudi antisemite homophobe’s survival has no urgency. None at all.

          • indravaruna September 29, 2017 at 23:21

            I think still is the interest of both US and Israel to keep Saudi Arabia going, at least just for the estability of the region and not so much for the oil, after the Saudi royals are gone all bets are off.

    • Wency September 29, 2017 at 13:33

      Is a Saudi Arabia where 15 year olds are NOT forced to marry 90 year olds a worse place? I don’t know. But it’s an awful model to aspire to. The risk of defects and depressed IQ in the children is high. It’s a wretched existence for her, and he will never really command her respect and admiration. And then she’ll be a widow/single mother in the very near future. Insofar as her prospects for further marriages will be depressed, there’s a good chance her lifetime fertility ends up lower than it otherwise would have been.

      Bedouin society is always rotten, feminism or no. The news about women driving is of interest only insofar as it shows that feminism continues to conquer, even against its most determined holdouts. The takeaway is not, “Well, Saudi is going down the drain.” It was always at the bottom of the drain.

      A society aspiring to greatness should imitate other great societies, including its own past, not awful societies. If population growth is your worry, colonial America produced very high levels by marrying women aged around 20 to men in their mid/late 20s. You don’t need to bring young teens into the mix, and the obsession with the idea (see Jim) doesn’t do anyone any good.

      • spandrell September 29, 2017 at 16:08

        The ability to sell one’s teen daughter to whomever one pleases is the litmus test of patriarchy. If you can, you have a patriarchy. If you can’t, then you don’t, and if so then matriarchy will happen.

        Of course a Yemenese bedouin selling a 15 year old to a 90 year old man is fairly unseemly, and I’d rather not be friends with that kind of family, but you either have a patriarchy or you haven’t. And I’d like to have one.

        • Wency September 29, 2017 at 17:45

          That might be true. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it’s a prerequisite for an “absolute patriarchy”, along with the right of the pater familias to kill his wife and children. I think a society can still be patriarchal with some restrictions on the abuses that men are allowed to inflict upon their families.

          Sure, those restrictions will snowball, and entropy brings that society back to gynocracy faster than if the patriarchy was absolute, but if any sort of reaction is possible in the West, it’s much more likely to succeed at pushing the clock back 100-200 years than 2000-3000.

          The West had a model of patriarchy that worked, for a time. Dysfunctional societies have models of patriarchy that have persisted longer. A key element of that patriarchy is cousin marriage, resulting in your paternal uncle being your father-in-law, and your father and uncle both collaborating with you in controlling your wife.

          So maybe the way to fight entropy is to embrace dysfunction, including things like cousin marriage, which seems to be the mentality of the “back to the stone age” crowd.

          Personally, I’d rather the West remain the West, and when it must adopt foreign ideas, better that they come from other civilized places.

          • spandrell September 29, 2017 at 19:13

            In Europe indeed you couldn’t kill your wife and children; but you could marry away your 15 year old daughter, and while not common, it was no cause for outrage.

            So we have a deal.

            • Rhetocrates October 2, 2017 at 14:42

              Just to reinforce this, patriarchy is not necessarily the same as slavery of women. Patriarchy is about controlling who women have sex with to keep it coordinated with who supports them materially. Slavery is about extracting goods from chattel.

      • A.B. Prosper September 29, 2017 at 20:10

        Modernity and Urbanization can’t support high fertility rates like that and it doesn’t need them anyway. The ecology cannot indefinitely support 300 million people in the US no matter how productive and clever we think we are .

        It will go down and if we slowly reduce our population now , crash now and avoid the rush as J.M Greer likes to say, we will be better off

        However to do this we have to stop feeding the 3rd world, stop buying oil from there, stop surplus production and exports and move to a more homogeneous population

        Its to late with China as we should never have helped them industrialize through trade or really anyone else buts its not too late for Autarcky Lite combined with Closed Borders and A little modest Patriarchy /Traditionalism , you know child custody and divorce reform and so long as boots stay on Leftist necks nearly every problem other than automation driven unemployment will be easily managed.

        Trying to roll back the clock to 1700 is just stupid trying to out breed low IQ amoral clansman
        cause “raw numbers” is equally stupid

        Our problems are domestic, no cucks, no Leftists , no money junkies, controlled merchant class, problems much less

  5. Imperial Energy September 27, 2017 at 10:14

    Wonder why this decision has been taken.

    SA has a true-Green religious police, however.

    This might cause some disturbances….

    • spandrell September 27, 2017 at 10:46

      A coup against the new young regent would make all the sense in the world.

    • lalit September 27, 2017 at 18:57

      There is an uneasy balance/alliance between the Saudi Monarchy and the Wahabbis at the moment. Perhaps this is the king’s way of making a power move against the Mullahs? You know, the age old Warrior vs Priest conflict, Warriors and priests being natural enemies. Could his be The Kshatriya-Brahmin conflict that Modlbug keeps talking about?

      • Imperial Energy September 28, 2017 at 02:48

        Interesting hypothesis. Perhaps, what he is doing is using Low against Middle in the standard way. He is creating a power-base of women that can allow him to degrade, defeat and destroy his rivals. Such a move sends a “signal” to the West and may well result in support (moral and material) for him and his “cause” whatever that might be. If SA does get into trouble, then this liberal “signalling” may be an investment in that the West will back him against others, including the Wahabbis.

        • Lalit September 28, 2017 at 04:27

          Yes, I also think he is daring the imams and the mutawa to challenge him or submit to him. This might also be a probing move by the king to test the resolve of the imams. I am now very interested in the reaction of the muttawa. If they let woman drivers be, the king has won. If they start punishing woman drivers over “other” frivolous/Islamic reasons, things will get really interesting. Gotta remember to buy some popcorn.

  6. Jefferson September 27, 2017 at 13:44

    As long as they’re wearing sleeping bags over their heads, this plays more as a PR move. The Saudi conspiracy looks real after Burma, so I’m skeptical.

  7. j September 27, 2017 at 15:07

    The isolation and guarding of females stopped to make sense and the Hejaz Arabs are not stupid (just consider their fabulous wealth). With the widespread use of the pill, sex is fun without serious consequences for the tribe; and the cost of keeping them masturbating in the haram is too heavy even for Saudis. Females tend to be industrious and can work while no power on Earth can make a nargila-smoking Bedouin to do anything resembling work.

    • spandrell September 27, 2017 at 15:52

      Sex is fun for the 20%.

      But if you’re saying that Saudis are thinking that after living off the oil they’ll start living off their women; well that does make some sense.

    • indravaruna September 27, 2017 at 21:04

      Hey J, what happened to your blog?

      • j September 28, 2017 at 06:22

        Deleted it because wanted to focus in solving a tax problem and disappointment for misunderstanding American elections. Started a new one.

    • A.B. Prosper September 29, 2017 at 20:14

      Can’t blame the Bedouin though, its a low trust culture and the level of cooperation and intelligence required for lasting wealth isn’t there,

      Why not enjoy life?

      Hell sometimes I think the west might learn something from them and stop producing more than we actually need . We allow ourselves to be governed by money junkies and merchant caste people and just maybe this is biting us in the rear

  8. Rhetocrates September 27, 2017 at 15:44

    Possible trajectory (no claim to its truth):

    – King declares women can drive in 10 months.
    – Social pressure keeps the majority of attached women from driving
    – Meanwhile, the initiative to get women driving is poorly-supported and women get on the roads with barely any training
    – A few months in, there are a couple of high-profile serious pile-ups involving women drivers
    – Much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, with mothers and sisters and daughters (and sons and fathers, but less so) crying all over the telly about how terrible these accidents are and how they miss their dead woman who was such a spot of brightness and originality
    – ‘Having women drive is too dangerous by half, and it’s bad for the environment because it puts more cars on the road’
    – King declares women can no longer drive
    – ‘We tried it; it didn’t work out’

    • lalit September 27, 2017 at 18:54

      This sort of thing has happened exactly how many times in the past?

      Women will be taken off the roads only if the Wahabbis come to power in some sort of a revolution, which has a fair chance of happening since I believe Islam, like a cat, has nine lives. It is a never a good idea to count Islam out. Failing that, the female-license Juggernaut will continue rolling on.

      • Rhetocrates September 28, 2017 at 00:50

        In the Islamic world? Plenty. Check out Iran 1967 vs Iran 2017.

        But like I said, I’m not claiming it’s likely that’s what’s going on or anything. Our host’s analysis is the far likelier. The idea just occurred to me as amusing.

        • Lalit September 28, 2017 at 04:29

          The status of women in Irannwas far higher in 1967 as compared to 2017. You are merely strengthening my point with that example.

  9. lalit September 27, 2017 at 17:17

    “Islamism will turn out to have been just a CIA operation after all.”

    India’s history with Islam belies this. More likely Islam is a Tiger that CIA thinks it can ride, but actually cannot. This religion has survived 1400 years. Let’s wait and watch

  10. Garr September 28, 2017 at 04:22

    How is castrating the enemy a Bad Thing?
    Evangelical colonels take over here, girls drive there — Good Thing.

  11. lalit September 28, 2017 at 22:25

    This is a good time to link to this earlier post of yours.

    A link talks about Saudi women being given the right to vote. There were a bunch of woman’s license (euphemistically called rights) activists who declared, “Next step, right to Drive”. I guess they achieved that now.

  12. T. G September 29, 2017 at 10:10

    Spandrell wrote that once upon a time he had been into WN. That kinda points away from an Iberian origin, statistically. His writing doesn’t feel German. I’d go for Hungarian, Czech, Romanian, or perhaps Balkan of some sort. Far less likely but still “on the table” is Baltic origin.

  13. XTRABEING ZILLIONZ September 30, 2017 at 00:25

    I find it humorous that modern liberalism is squatting like an octopus over the entire Middle East and shitting out turd-propagandas that turn into decrees like this. It’s like nothing can stop the liberal myopia miasma — and that’s a near 3-letter alliteration. Imagine how powerful my Comment would have been if I’d hit the hat trick!

  14. Yakimi September 30, 2017 at 09:02

    Hey Spandrell, are you going to write about Japan again? Exciting stuff is happening.

    • spandrell September 30, 2017 at 11:05

      I follow the news. But how is this exciting? Koike is just a hack without any ideas. The minshinto collapsing is funny but as I see it none of this will be consequential.

  15. Bob October 3, 2017 at 01:16

    Patriarchy is egalitarian. It suppresses women’s freedom because men’s freedom is suppressed as well. Male freedom and sexuality consist of the ability to initiate force and commit violence and kill people. This is suppressed for the purposes of establishing a peaceful society, and in turn female sexuality is suppressed as well. Women’s liberation which frees female sexuality while at the same suppressing male freedom and sexuality erodes the foundations of society.

    The “dysfunctional” models of patriarchy are desperate attempts to prop up the foundations of society. It’s a mistake to conclude that such desperate attempts are unnecessary by noticing that things don’t seem that bad so far in the wake of women’s liberation. The trend and direction are what’s important. Western societies have been living off of and cannibalizing the capital stock accumulated from the more patriarchal past. Furthermore, they’ve been increasingly dependent on relatively more patriarchal cultures like Catholic Latin Americans to maintain the economic infrastructure while women pursue careers and native men drop out of the labor force. So things may not apparently seem so bad now but the trend is clear and it’s towards a level below that of the dysfunctional patriarchal societies.

  16. mitchellporter October 8, 2017 at 23:12

    “The ability to sell one’s teen daughter to whomever one pleases is the litmus test of patriarchy. If you can, you have a patriarchy. If you can’t, then you don’t, and if so then matriarchy will happen.”

    I used to say that the main thing I learned from Moldbug is an understanding of non-democratic political culture. I wasn’t convinced that the West would be better off without democracy, but I could see the internal logic of the alternatives much better.

    Now it looks like Spandrell, for me, is the Moldbug of patriarchy – real patriarchy, not the patriarchy-lite of feminist definition. Unlike certain alternatives to democracy, I have essentially zero sympathy for the radical formulation above. It makes it sound as if your girl-children are your slaves, until you make them someone else’s slaves.

    But what is really being discussed is arranged marriage. And that has been reality for large portions of humanity for much of history, and still is. So just from a perspective of grasping reality, it’s worth it for someone like myself, coming from a society in which arranged marriage has been an alien thing for many generations, to be confronted with the facts. (Wikipedia also helps, by emphasizing that there is a spectrum between “arranged marriage” and “autonomous marriage”.)

    • spandrell October 9, 2017 at 12:32

      Whites, and Americans in particular have this parochial habit of speaking of people as being either “free” or “slaves”. That’s an extremely inaccurate way to understand how pre-modern societies worked. Nobody is really free, and in the absence of legal slavery, what you get in a feudal or post-feudal society is a continuum of duties and obligations between people. In a patriarchy women are subjected to men, period.

      Adult men are heads of their household, and as such have the duty to their dependent women and children. But adult men have also obligations towards their superiors, either local lords, or ultimately the king. At the very least he had the duty of military service which entails long periods of extreme hardship and a high risk of death.

      So I wouldn’t say girls were slaves. You can say you wouldn’t enjoy that kind of society right now; I’m not sure I would enjoy it that much myself, but back then the incentives existed for productive men to reproduce; they don’t exist today, and society will soon collapse at this rate.

      • Howard J. Harrison October 17, 2017 at 20:06

        Mitchell’s comment and Spandrell’s reply are even more interesting to me than the original post is. (This is a frequent feature of the Bloody Shovel, incidentally: the articles are good; the comments are the best on the Internet.)

        A lifelong American, I have sometimes wondered about freedom and slavery along the lines discussed. I worry about the theoretically declining liberty of the American citizen but, at the same time, I admit that I have never personally felt very unfree. Heck, even when I served in the U.S. Army (which I loved), I never felt very unfree. As a civilian, I pretty much go where I want and do what I like—subject, of course, to the many responsibilities a father of six children constantly bears.

        Consider this. A year ago, during a break in my college teaching schedule, I traveled to market engineering consulting. I happen to dislike hotels and, especially—because I am stingy and am less wealthy than I would like—happen to dislike hotel bills, so I slept in my car during the week, washing up each morning at a different truck stop or fitness club. This is a bit ridiculous, if you think about it: here is a middle-aged man (me) with a professional engineer’s license haunting your town like a hobo because he doesn’t feel like paying a hotel bill. Local citizenry isn’t very inclined to condone such behavior, but I made myself inconspicuous and, though the police (who are too experienced not to notice that I was there) would occasionally check, no one overreacted, and no one was likely to.

        So, that’s freedom, if you like.

        Yet I still must pay my property tax on time, mustn’t I? I still must file my annual income tax return, which means (as far as the aforementioned consulting goes) that I either have to read the tax code myself or hire an accountant to do it for me. When a road is closed for construction, I must take an alternate route whether I like it or not. I cannot (but also hardly wish to) say anything remotely controversial at work. I must solicit state permission before building big things at home, even if I build them with my own hands (I tried skipping the permit once; I got in trouble). And so on.

        So, to marriage. Are wives who are legally subjected to their husbands unfree? I don’t really know. My wife of 23 years and I have a good relationship. It seldom occurs to me to issue commands and, on the few emergency occasions on which I have done, the commands have been obeyed. I don’t believe that my wife thinks that she is unfree; and, besides, like all wives, she has ways of getting what she wants, when she really wants it. I don’t know how much different the relationship would be if she were legally subjected to me. I couldn’t tell you.

        It is an interesting question, though.

        By the way, my wife not only has a driver’s license but a commercial driver’s license, which means that she can legally drive heavy vehicles I cannot. I suppose that that means that my wife, a natural blonde, is not a Saudi. Go figure.

        • spandrell October 19, 2017 at 21:11

          Well, thanks. In appreciation for your flattery I’ll avoid mentioning your hugely weird stinginess.

          An important point of this blog is that most popular concepts map very badly to reality. They’re the result of parochial political debates, which are just a who-whom. The who-whom fight between Yankees and Dixies resulted in a 200 year old obsession with “slavery”, which was indeed a legal category in the 19th century USA, but just not that important for the vast majority of human history. That particular bit of US history resulted in constructing a narrative where the USA “is about” freedom, freedom being this super important thing, because if it isn’t then the Yankees don’t deserve to rule Dixie and we can’t have that.

          People with high status or aspiring to have it, have a huge incentive to keep the present status hierarchy in place, and huge amounts of stupid ideas are produced because of that.

          • Garr October 20, 2017 at 00:30

            Patrick Henry said “Liberty or Death!” in about 1775, and he wasn’t thinking about Negro slaves.

            • spandrell October 21, 2017 at 00:18

              Liberty as in “independence from Britain”, not as in “libertarian freedom to smoke pot and put my dick where I wish”.

              • Garr October 21, 2017 at 21:11

                Freedom to smoke weed and screw around is an aristocratic thing — I don’t think that Puritan anti-slavery Yankees had that in mind. It’s more what Mick Jagger imagines in “Brown Sugar”, where he’s playing the role of a Louisiana lord partying with the serfs.

          • Howard J. Harrison October 20, 2017 at 03:38

            For me to mention the travel arrangement was a mistake, a distraction. Children have orthodontist’s bills and such that must be paid. If you have six children as I do, the bills add up. Choices must be made, one does what one must, but even under cover of a pseudonym I should have refrained from mentioning the matter here—or anywhere, really. Please pardon.

            Half my real life—it has been a comfortable life for which I am grateful—does seem to consist of practical examples of concepts that “map very badly to reality,” though.

  17. Dividualist October 10, 2017 at 10:51

    Driving doesn’t sound like an inherently decadent thing. In fact I am annoyed that my wife, mother etc. refuse to drive do to aggressive male drivers. (This will sound strange to Americans, the difference is that stick drive cars stall often if you are not very good at it, and stalling at a green light of course means a honk concerto and yelling insults.) It was normal for other male relatives to get drunk and be driven home by their wives, not for us.

    In a proper patriarchy, driving kids to school is typically that kind of work a man would outsource to his wife. I don’t see the danger in it.

    I don’t know how men drive in Saudi Arabia but guesstimate would be that it makes countries Italy look like a picnic. Pretty much there will be 5 strong independent poster girls and most other women would be too scared to drive around men especially if many are actually against it and will find a way to teach a lesson – brake checks and all that.

  18. nationalistperspective October 13, 2017 at 02:26

    Spandrell, I miss your poasting! Poast some more! You’re among the best out there.

  19. Flavia October 14, 2017 at 20:57

    You were right a about the Rohinga. A picture of a rohinga refugee chick just popped up on my Instagram feed (I follow National Geographic) with a long sob story about their plight. At least the globalist safe predictable.

  20. Garr October 15, 2017 at 14:24

    I’m worried about Jim — his site’s been frozen for a couple of days.

  21. grey enlightenment October 21, 2017 at 20:13

    man, jordan peterson makes a lot on patreon

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s